Why not Mike Huckabee?

One of the things that bothers me about Mike Huckabee is that he seems to underestimate the importance of federalism to American liberty. Huckabee is by no means alone in holding this view, nor is he the worst offender. The modern Democratic Party often seems almost contemptuous of federalism at times. Likewise, President Bush proved that he was no federalist when he proposed and signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which vastly expanded federal power over education policy.

Anyway, back to Mr. Huckabee. The following is from a Christian Post article dated Tuesday, January 22:

The “Rediscovering God in America” pastor's conference, hosted by the influential American Family Association, featured Huckabee Monday and will present former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as Tuesday’s keynote speaker.

Huckabee, who said he was not there as a presidential candidate, warmed up his conservative audience by declaring that overturning the Roe v. Wade court ruling was not enough because it would leave individual states to decide their own laws on abortion – a moral issue where there is a right and a wrong, he contends. He argues that a constitutional amendment that defines life at conception is necessary to prevent “50 versions of right and wrong.”

“How could we expect God’s future blessing on this country if we cannot come to the logical conclusion that every life He creates He creates with the same equal intrinsic value and worth as another?” Huckabee asked.

I'll give Huckabee this much. At least he supports actually amending the Constitution in order to achieve his social objectives instead of seeking to impose them by judicial fiat. I can't say the same of most liberals. But, the idea that it is somehow a bad thing for the states to decide what to do about contentious social and legal issues such as abortion should be heresy to conservatives.

Restoring the proper balance between the federal government and the states is important not because it is part of some partisan ideology that we conservatives have embraced in order to smite and oppress liberals, but because it serves the long-term objective of preserving the Union.

We don't talk much about "preserving the Union" these days, because there aren't very many people who openly advocate disunion. That hasn't always been the case, of course, and one would be naive to believe that it will continue to be the case in the future. One virtue of federalism - of a constitutionally-enforced balance of power between sovereign governments - is that it provides political stability. In an extended republic like the United States, that is extremely important. James Madison touched on this topic in Federalist 10. I won't quote from it, but if you haven't read it, you ought to. It has a great deal of relevance to the Red State-Blue State divide that is so prevalent in our politics today, and it suggests that the means by which that divide should be addressed lies in adhering to the Constitution and to its principles.

One of those principles is federalism. In the United States, federalism doesn't encompass just "states' rights," nor is it limited to "federal supremacy." Its essence - as it was so artfully crafted in the U.S. Constitution - lies in achieving a proper balance between the two.

Mike Huckabee claims that there can't possibly be “50 versions of right and wrong.” As a moral absolutist, I agree with that absolutely. However, I also believe that man possesses a free will and a somewhat defective conscience. That means that he is prone to disagree with his fellow man about what is right and what is wrong. The Framers of our Constitution understood that fact quite well, and they provided us a way to relieve the tensions that they knew would arise from time to time. It's called federalism, and I think all of us - whether we're liberals or conservatives or fence-straddling moderates - ought to rediscover it.